Bug#111025: debian-policy: typo in chapter 9: ldconfig and pre/post scripts

On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 06:50:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > The most recent proposed patch [1] in this bug removes the rationale > about ldconfig seeing dpkg's temporary files if you call it at the wrong > point in the maintainer scripts. I'd like to suggest that this rationale > should be reta

Re: Bug#151328: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] virtual package debconf-2.0

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Anthony Towns wrote: > > least implemented the same in debconf and cdebconf, it may be best if > > packages use debconf | debconf-protocol-2.0 in their dependencies so > > that dselect et al will pick the currently more sane choice by default. At one point this was recommend

Bug#111025: ¶Ç¯u¸¹½X¥X°â

¶Ç¯u¸¹½X¥X°â [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¬O§Ú±q¦U­Ó¦P·~¤½·|¡B¹q¸Üï¡B¶À­¶¡B¼x«H©Ò¡B ºô»Úºô¸ô¡A¥úºÐ¤ù...µ¥µ¥¡A [EMAIL PROTECTED]@µ§¥´¤J¦¬¶°¤U¨Óªº¡A¶O¤F«Ü¤jªº¥\¤Ò¡C ¥úªá¿ú¶R¼x«H©Ò¥Xªºªº¥U¤l¡A´Nªá¤F

Bug#111025: debian-policy: typo in chapter 9: ldconfig and pre/post scripts

The most recent proposed patch [1] in this bug removes the rationale about ldconfig seeing dpkg's temporary files if you call it at the wrong point in the maintainer scripts. I'd like to suggest that this rationale should be retained, if only in a footnote. Would the proposer or the seconders obje

Bug#111025: ¶Ç¯u¸¹½X¥X°â

¶Ç¯u¸¹½X¥X°â [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¬O§Ú±q¦U­Ó¦P·~¤½·|¡B¹q¸Üï¡B¶À­¶¡B¼x«H©Ò¡B ºô»Úºô¸ô¡A¥úºÐ¤ù...µ¥µ¥¡A [EMAIL PROTECTED]@µ§¥´¤J¦¬¶°¤U¨Óªº¡A¶O¤F«Ü¤jªº¥\¤Ò¡C ¥úªá¿ú¶R¼x«H©Ò¥Xªºªº¥U¤l¡A´Nªá¤F

Bug#151328: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] virtual package debconf-2.0

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 10:08:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Until these differences are identified, and resolved in the spec or at > least implemented the same in debconf and cdebconf, it may be best if > packages use debconf | debconf-protocol-2.0 in their dependencies so > that dselect et al wil